The following Australian government outrage hasn't, to my knowledge, been covered in the mainstream Australian press. Here is the text of a petition circulating on the matter. (It may be found at www.megaphone.org.au/petitions/overturn-visa-ban-let-palestinian-poet-into-australia):
"World renowned American, Palestinian writer, poet and organiser Remi Kanazi has had his visa revoked. He was planning a speaking and performance tour of Australia. The organisers of his tour claim that the denial of his visa is an attack on free speech and the right of Palestinians to enter this country. Kanazi has been denied a visa after a campaign by the Anti-Defamation Commission to the minister for immigration.
"Marxism Conference organiser Vashti Kenway says that 'The denial of Kanazi's visa is a clear violation of the right of free speech in this country. This is the second time Palestinian speakers at our Marxism Conference have have had a visa denied them and the third to have major issues.'
"In 2016 Palestinian American journalist Ali Abunimah had to battle to get a visa into Australia and in 2017 Bassem Tamimi from the Palestinian Occupied Territories, father of political prisoner Ahed Tamimi, was denied entry. Prominent Palestinian spokesperson Nasser Mashni from Australians for Palestine says: 'This decision is an act of selective, politically-motivated censorship. It is clear the government is deliberately silencing and preventing human rights defenders and Palestinian voices for justice from being heard in Australia.'
"The Anti-Defamation Commission claim Kanazi is anti-semitic for his support for Palestinian resistance and have garnered support for their campaign from a number of MPs.
'The conflation of support for Palestinian resistance with anti-semitism is a common trope. Similar accusations have been levelled at British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and American senator Ilhan Omar in recent months. This is slander and operates to silence Palestinian voices. Standing up for the human right of Palestinians to resist their occupation and the war waged against them is entirely justified,' Kenway claims.
"Kanazi is a globally renowned and respected commentator on Palestinian issues. His political commentary has been featured by news outlets throughout the world including the New York Times, Salon, Al Jazeera English and BBC Radio. He has appeared in the Palestine Festival of Literature. this is the first time that he has ever been denied a visa anywhere in the world."
You click on the 'Remi Kanazi' label below to read his poem, The Dos & Don'ts of Palestine. And while we're at it, here's another from his 2011 collection, Poetic Injustice: Writings on Resistance & Palestine:
Only as Equals
every time I think of 9/11
I see burning flesh
dripping off the bones
of Iraqi children in Fallujah
now Gaza
I tend to memorialize the forgotten
the collateral damage
eclipsing America's unpunished crimes
maybe it's because I'm a numbers guy?
because if I had a dollar
for every time
an Iraqi died since 2003
I'd be a millionaire
and don't get me wrong
sometimes I don't know
who to hate more
the governments in the West
or the politicians in the East
who sell their souls
quicker than the oil they export
straw men who use Palestine
as a tool to line their pockets
and don't give a nickel
to their people
quisling governments
who stitch mouths shut for a check
from Washington and AIPAC
how can they be
Israel's prototypical anti-Semite
if they're signing peace accords
to oppress their own people?
then Orientalists and hypocrites
talk about how democracy
can't be allowed in the Middle East
because of what happened in Gaza
a Hamas bogeyman
wrapped in democratic elections
Rahm Emmanuel wants to educate me
and my people
about democracy gone wrong
why doesn't he try
implementing one in Israel first?
instead of bowing down to terrorists
like his father and the IDF
lauding a third-rate, racist, European society
that's imploding faster
than its moral standing in the world
enlightened like 1950s Afrikaners
and slave traders
just because the house is beautiful
doesn't mean the bones you built it on
have fully decomposed
the Israeli left
is about alive as Ariel Sharon
I'm sick and tired
of asking for permission to resist
from antiquated leftists and progressives
who care more about keeping it Kosher
than moving things forward
I put down my pen and waving fist
to resist with college kids
and Palestinians
boycott and divest
because who cares about
preserving a living
when governments
are killing civilians?
we'll boycott Elbit Systems
Caterpillar and your apartheid companies
we're taking back the right of return
and the keys to our country
because we never asked you
to go back to Europe
or sit in open-air prisons
I'm not asking for your advice
I'm explaining the decision
you can stay here
with us
but only as equals
it's not that you're Israeli
it's that you're wrong
that's why I fight for my people!
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Monday, April 1, 2019
Monday, January 14, 2019
50 Years of Anti-Palestinian Press Bias
Here's the introduction to an important new study of press bias relating to Palestine/Israel coverage which, sadly, merely confirms what we already knew from our casual reading, namely that the mainstream US press is overwhelmingly anti-Palestinian in content, and has been since 1967:
"A study released last month by 416Labs, a Toronto-based consulting and research firm, supports the view that mainstream US newspapers consistently portray Palestine in a more negative light than Israel, privilege Israeli sources, and omit key facts helpful to understanding the Israeli occupation, including those expressed by Palestinian sources. The largest of its kind, the study is based on a sentiment and n-gram analysis of nearly a hundred thousand headlines in five mainstream newspapers dating back to 1967. The newspapers are the top five US dailies, The New York Times, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, and the Los Angeles Times. Headlines spanning five decades were put into two datasets, one comprising 17,492 Palestinian-centric headlines, and another comprising 82,102 Israeli-centric headlines. Using Natural Language Processing techniques, authors of the assessed the degree to which the sentiment of the headlines could be classified as positive, negative, or neutral. They also examined the frequency of using certain words that evoke a particular view or perception.
"Key findings of the study are:
*Since 1967, use of the word 'occupation' has declined by 85% in the Israeli dataset of headlines, and by 65% in the Palestinian dataset;
*Since 1967, mentions of Palestinian refugees have declined by an overall 93%;
*Israeli sources are nearly 250% more likely to be quoted as Palestinians;
*The number of headlines centering Israel were published four times more than those centering Palestine;
*Words connoting violence such as 'terror' appear three times as much as the word 'occupation' in the Palestinian dataset;
*Explicit recognition that Israeli settlements and settlers are illegal rarely appears both in both datasets;
*Since 1967, mentions of 'East Jerusalem,' distinguishing that part of the city occupied by Israel in 1967 from the rest of the city, appeared only a total of 132 times;
*The Los Angeles Times has portrayed Palestinians most negatively, followed by the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, and lastly The New York Times;
*Coverage of the conflict has reduced dramatically in the second half of the fifty-year period." (Exclusive: are US newspapers biased against Palestinians? Analysis of a hundred thousand headlines says yes, Dorgham Abusalim, palestinesquare.com, 9/1/19)
A comparable study of the Australian press, you can be sure, would only replicate such a bias. It should also be noted that since the Fairfax (now Nine Entertainment Co.) and Murdoch presses ceased to employ Middle East correspondents, the former now recycles reports from the Washington Post and The New York Times, while the latter draws on items from the Murdoch-owned The Times and The Wall Street Journal.
"A study released last month by 416Labs, a Toronto-based consulting and research firm, supports the view that mainstream US newspapers consistently portray Palestine in a more negative light than Israel, privilege Israeli sources, and omit key facts helpful to understanding the Israeli occupation, including those expressed by Palestinian sources. The largest of its kind, the study is based on a sentiment and n-gram analysis of nearly a hundred thousand headlines in five mainstream newspapers dating back to 1967. The newspapers are the top five US dailies, The New York Times, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, and the Los Angeles Times. Headlines spanning five decades were put into two datasets, one comprising 17,492 Palestinian-centric headlines, and another comprising 82,102 Israeli-centric headlines. Using Natural Language Processing techniques, authors of the assessed the degree to which the sentiment of the headlines could be classified as positive, negative, or neutral. They also examined the frequency of using certain words that evoke a particular view or perception.
"Key findings of the study are:
*Since 1967, use of the word 'occupation' has declined by 85% in the Israeli dataset of headlines, and by 65% in the Palestinian dataset;
*Since 1967, mentions of Palestinian refugees have declined by an overall 93%;
*Israeli sources are nearly 250% more likely to be quoted as Palestinians;
*The number of headlines centering Israel were published four times more than those centering Palestine;
*Words connoting violence such as 'terror' appear three times as much as the word 'occupation' in the Palestinian dataset;
*Explicit recognition that Israeli settlements and settlers are illegal rarely appears both in both datasets;
*Since 1967, mentions of 'East Jerusalem,' distinguishing that part of the city occupied by Israel in 1967 from the rest of the city, appeared only a total of 132 times;
*The Los Angeles Times has portrayed Palestinians most negatively, followed by the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, and lastly The New York Times;
*Coverage of the conflict has reduced dramatically in the second half of the fifty-year period." (Exclusive: are US newspapers biased against Palestinians? Analysis of a hundred thousand headlines says yes, Dorgham Abusalim, palestinesquare.com, 9/1/19)
A comparable study of the Australian press, you can be sure, would only replicate such a bias. It should also be noted that since the Fairfax (now Nine Entertainment Co.) and Murdoch presses ceased to employ Middle East correspondents, the former now recycles reports from the Washington Post and The New York Times, while the latter draws on items from the Murdoch-owned The Times and The Wall Street Journal.
Saturday, August 11, 2018
'We Wait in Fear'
"I spent time with BBC journalists and a senior producer said to me 'We wait in fear for the phone call from the Israelis. I have had journalists on the phone to me minutes before a broadcast checking what they can say, which words they can use'." - Professor Greg Philo, Glasgow Media Group, SOAS, 19/5/11
Shit, here's one now:
"@BBCWorld this is a formal complaint by @IsraelMFA. This title [Israeli air strikes 'kill pregnant woman and baby'] This title is a deliberate misrepresentation of reality (that's the polite equivalent of 'this is a LIE', if you don't get it). Israelis were targeted by Hamas and IDF acts to protect them. Change it IMMEDIATELY!!! @IsraelMFA" - Emmanuel Nahshon tweet, 9/8/18
So they did, and in double time too: "Gaza air strikes 'kill woman and child' after rockets hit Israel" - 9/8/18
***
Don't tell me this isn't happening with our ABC.
Shit, here's one now:
"@BBCWorld this is a formal complaint by @IsraelMFA. This title [Israeli air strikes 'kill pregnant woman and baby'] This title is a deliberate misrepresentation of reality (that's the polite equivalent of 'this is a LIE', if you don't get it). Israelis were targeted by Hamas and IDF acts to protect them. Change it IMMEDIATELY!!! @IsraelMFA" - Emmanuel Nahshon tweet, 9/8/18
So they did, and in double time too: "Gaza air strikes 'kill woman and child' after rockets hit Israel" - 9/8/18
***
Don't tell me this isn't happening with our ABC.
Monday, July 9, 2018
Must Watch: The Occupation of the American Mind
Sut Jhally's film, The Occupation of the American Mind: Israel's Public Relations War in the United States, is an absolute must watch. Jhally is professor of communication at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the director of other films on msm manipulation of the American mind. I received notice of his latest film with the following note attached. Having just viewed it, I fully concur - watch and share widely:
"Despite receiving an overwhelmingly positive response from those who have actually seen it, The Occupation of the American Mind has been repeatedly attacked and misrepresented by right-wing pressure groups and outright ignored by virtually all mainstream media outlets and North American film festivals. To bypass this campaign of misrepresentation and suppression, we've decided to make the film available for FREE online so that people can make up their own minds about its analysis of US media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Please watch and share widely!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmoYoiMgpWU
"Despite receiving an overwhelmingly positive response from those who have actually seen it, The Occupation of the American Mind has been repeatedly attacked and misrepresented by right-wing pressure groups and outright ignored by virtually all mainstream media outlets and North American film festivals. To bypass this campaign of misrepresentation and suppression, we've decided to make the film available for FREE online so that people can make up their own minds about its analysis of US media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Please watch and share widely!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmoYoiMgpWU
Sunday, October 1, 2017
Mearsheimer & Walt's 'Israel Lobby' 10 Years On
If Spain had the Inquisition, the United States has the Israel lobby. Such is the fear of 'the lobby' in the United States that the classic book on the subject, Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy (2007) almost failed to appear:
"The two men actually gave up on the article and book years before it was published because doors kept closing... Mearsheimer spoke about the idea first at the American Political Science Association meetings in Boston in 2002; and a friend said the Atlantic wanted to commission an article on that very subject. The Atlantic magazine assigned Walt and Mearsheimer in 2002. Then it got cold feet and killed the piece in early 2005. At that time, Walt said, the two scholars thought no other outlet in the United States would publish it, but they could flesh it out as a 'short book,' so they consulted a 'number' of publishers... We got what you would call polite interest but nothing you could call enthusiasm. At one point we basically decided to drop the project entirely... After that, though, an editor who had a copy of the piece showed it to a scholar at UCLA who reached out to Mearsheimer and said the London Review of Books might be interested. The LRB version was eventually published in March 2006, and 'provoked an immediate firestorm,' Walt said. Ironically, once it provoked that firestorm, suddenly publishers... recognized that there was a product people were interested in and suddenly they were contacting us and offering us book contracts." ('The lobby is still as powerful as ever' - John Mearsheimer, ten years after publishing The Israel Lobby, Philip Weiss, mondoweiss.net, 25/9/17)
The comment by CitizenC in the thread following Weiss's post is a fair assessment of the book:
"The book and article were indeed important landmarks, and brought the issue into the mainstream. But the authors pulled their punches in certain ways. They did not examine the first chapter of the story, the 1940s, when the nascent IL overwhelmed the opposition of the military and diplomatic establishments, and forced support for the partition of Palestine and a Jewish state on the US government. They also claimed that the IL 'is just another lobby, doing its job in US interest group politics.' This was in part defensiveness about the charge of anti-Semitism, which they addressed.
"The IL is not like other lobbies. It has operated at and beyond the margins of the law since its founding. In its early years it moved adroitly thru various legal gambits and incorporations to evade prosecution under foreign agent laws. The Fulbright hearings of the early 1960s forced the founding of AIPAC by existing IL personnel, and were the end of US sovereignty in the foreign agent area, as far as Israel was concerned. Grant Smith has shown all this in an important series of books based on documents unearthed with FOIA. He feels that the USG has essentially lost the ability to enforce the Foreign Agent Registration Act where Israel is concerned.
"Much of Mearsheimer and Walt's defensiveness was due to the refusal of the left, led by Chomsky, to consider the issue, imposing instead the [Israel as] 'strategic asset' dogma. Chomsky wrote some trivial dismissal in response to the article, and ignored the book. The left is unchanged since Mearsheimer and Walt. The IL argument is still viciously attacked as anti-Semitism, notably by Jewish Voice for Peace. Ten years after the article and book appeared, Chomsky's friend Irene Gendzier tried to impose the 'strategic asset' argument on the 40s, in a risibly weak book.
"The IL has also been addressed by diplomats, politicians and academics since the 40s. Paul Findley, George Ball and Michael Cohen are examples. Nonetheless, Mearsheimer and Walt gave the issue renewed prominence, made a major contribution, and paid a price, as Phil says."
I would add to CitizenC's list in the above paragraph - and highly recommend - James Petras' The Power of Israel in the United States (2006).
"The two men actually gave up on the article and book years before it was published because doors kept closing... Mearsheimer spoke about the idea first at the American Political Science Association meetings in Boston in 2002; and a friend said the Atlantic wanted to commission an article on that very subject. The Atlantic magazine assigned Walt and Mearsheimer in 2002. Then it got cold feet and killed the piece in early 2005. At that time, Walt said, the two scholars thought no other outlet in the United States would publish it, but they could flesh it out as a 'short book,' so they consulted a 'number' of publishers... We got what you would call polite interest but nothing you could call enthusiasm. At one point we basically decided to drop the project entirely... After that, though, an editor who had a copy of the piece showed it to a scholar at UCLA who reached out to Mearsheimer and said the London Review of Books might be interested. The LRB version was eventually published in March 2006, and 'provoked an immediate firestorm,' Walt said. Ironically, once it provoked that firestorm, suddenly publishers... recognized that there was a product people were interested in and suddenly they were contacting us and offering us book contracts." ('The lobby is still as powerful as ever' - John Mearsheimer, ten years after publishing The Israel Lobby, Philip Weiss, mondoweiss.net, 25/9/17)
The comment by CitizenC in the thread following Weiss's post is a fair assessment of the book:
"The book and article were indeed important landmarks, and brought the issue into the mainstream. But the authors pulled their punches in certain ways. They did not examine the first chapter of the story, the 1940s, when the nascent IL overwhelmed the opposition of the military and diplomatic establishments, and forced support for the partition of Palestine and a Jewish state on the US government. They also claimed that the IL 'is just another lobby, doing its job in US interest group politics.' This was in part defensiveness about the charge of anti-Semitism, which they addressed.
"The IL is not like other lobbies. It has operated at and beyond the margins of the law since its founding. In its early years it moved adroitly thru various legal gambits and incorporations to evade prosecution under foreign agent laws. The Fulbright hearings of the early 1960s forced the founding of AIPAC by existing IL personnel, and were the end of US sovereignty in the foreign agent area, as far as Israel was concerned. Grant Smith has shown all this in an important series of books based on documents unearthed with FOIA. He feels that the USG has essentially lost the ability to enforce the Foreign Agent Registration Act where Israel is concerned.
"Much of Mearsheimer and Walt's defensiveness was due to the refusal of the left, led by Chomsky, to consider the issue, imposing instead the [Israel as] 'strategic asset' dogma. Chomsky wrote some trivial dismissal in response to the article, and ignored the book. The left is unchanged since Mearsheimer and Walt. The IL argument is still viciously attacked as anti-Semitism, notably by Jewish Voice for Peace. Ten years after the article and book appeared, Chomsky's friend Irene Gendzier tried to impose the 'strategic asset' argument on the 40s, in a risibly weak book.
"The IL has also been addressed by diplomats, politicians and academics since the 40s. Paul Findley, George Ball and Michael Cohen are examples. Nonetheless, Mearsheimer and Walt gave the issue renewed prominence, made a major contribution, and paid a price, as Phil says."
I would add to CitizenC's list in the above paragraph - and highly recommend - James Petras' The Power of Israel in the United States (2006).
Monday, July 24, 2017
The Dead Weight of Israel Lobby Censorship
From the Australian's former Middle East Correspondent, John Lyons:
"Through my six years in the Middle East I'd come under constant pressure from Israel lobby groups to pull my punches. I realised from many discussions with other foreign journalists that this pressure was applied in many countries. Of the many hours of discussion I had with my colleagues in the foreign media, one comment shocked me. It was when I asked Phillipe Agret, the bureau of Agence France Press, a question. AFP is one of the most powerful news agencies in the world. It is highly regarded as credible and independent. It is famous for resisting pressure in whichever country it operates. Agret and I were discussing how some media groups censored their reporting out of Israel in a way that they did in no other country. I asked him who he thought was self-censoring out of Israel. Without hesitation, he replied: 'Everybody'." (From Man in the middle: For a Jerusalem correspondent, the truth is always hard won, The Weekend Australian Magazine, 22/7/17)
Errr... any of you guys ever heard of resistance?
"Why do the supporters of Israel want to prevent stories like this [Four Corners: Stone Cold Justice (2014)] from spreading overseas? When we arrived we did not realise the prize that many political factions in the country coveted: formalising the occupation of the West Bank into official annexation and achieving Greater Israel... In order to continue pursuing its endgame of annexing the West Bank, [the Israeli right] can't allow the international community to form the view that the occupation is unacceptable. So reports of brutality in the West Bank are minimised so that international opinion does not turn against it." (ibid)
NB: The TWA's piece, Man in the middle, is an edited extract from Balcony Over Jerusalem, by John Lyons and Sylvie Le Clezio, released today.)
"Through my six years in the Middle East I'd come under constant pressure from Israel lobby groups to pull my punches. I realised from many discussions with other foreign journalists that this pressure was applied in many countries. Of the many hours of discussion I had with my colleagues in the foreign media, one comment shocked me. It was when I asked Phillipe Agret, the bureau of Agence France Press, a question. AFP is one of the most powerful news agencies in the world. It is highly regarded as credible and independent. It is famous for resisting pressure in whichever country it operates. Agret and I were discussing how some media groups censored their reporting out of Israel in a way that they did in no other country. I asked him who he thought was self-censoring out of Israel. Without hesitation, he replied: 'Everybody'." (From Man in the middle: For a Jerusalem correspondent, the truth is always hard won, The Weekend Australian Magazine, 22/7/17)
Errr... any of you guys ever heard of resistance?
"Why do the supporters of Israel want to prevent stories like this [Four Corners: Stone Cold Justice (2014)] from spreading overseas? When we arrived we did not realise the prize that many political factions in the country coveted: formalising the occupation of the West Bank into official annexation and achieving Greater Israel... In order to continue pursuing its endgame of annexing the West Bank, [the Israeli right] can't allow the international community to form the view that the occupation is unacceptable. So reports of brutality in the West Bank are minimised so that international opinion does not turn against it." (ibid)
NB: The TWA's piece, Man in the middle, is an edited extract from Balcony Over Jerusalem, by John Lyons and Sylvie Le Clezio, released today.)
Monday, April 10, 2017
The Silencing of Bassem Tamimi
Not a whisper about this matter in that hive of alleged free speech warriors, the Murdoch press:
"The Immigration Department has refused to comment on exactly why it blocked the visa of a prominent Palestinian activist, but has argued it has a responsibility to protect the community from abuse or danger. Bassem Tamimi, 50, had his visa cancelled hours before he was due to travel to Australia, on the grounds his opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could provoke anger in the community. He had been given permission to travel to Australia on Tuesday, but the following day the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) revoked his visa." (Visa of Palestinian activist Bassem Tamimi revoked hours before travel, Matthew Doran, abc.net.au, 8/4/17)
The department's grounds for blocking Tamimi's visa are, of course, entirely spurious. The simple fact of the matter is that while Israeli apartheid politicians and propagandists, from Netanyahu on down, come and go without let or hindrance, a bona fide victim of Israeli apartheid, with an urgent story to tell about the ongoing theft and occupation of his land, has the door slammed in his face.
The real reason Tamimi's visa was blocked has been spelt out by the ABC's Middle East correspondent, Sophie McNeill, in a tweet:
"I'm told Bassem Tamimi's visa to #Australia was revoked after lobbying by #AIJAC on Immigration Minister Dutton's office." (8/4/17)
No surprise there. Just another stark reminder of the power of Israel in Australia.
Allow me to recall here Kevin Rudd's inclusive description of Australia's Deep State:
"[Rudd] reflects on how few people run the country: the Murdoch media, the heads of Rio and BHP, probably the heads of the big banks, and 'that mob', by which he means the hard-line, Likud-aligned pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne." (Diary of a Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, 2014, p 449)
"The Immigration Department has refused to comment on exactly why it blocked the visa of a prominent Palestinian activist, but has argued it has a responsibility to protect the community from abuse or danger. Bassem Tamimi, 50, had his visa cancelled hours before he was due to travel to Australia, on the grounds his opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could provoke anger in the community. He had been given permission to travel to Australia on Tuesday, but the following day the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) revoked his visa." (Visa of Palestinian activist Bassem Tamimi revoked hours before travel, Matthew Doran, abc.net.au, 8/4/17)
The department's grounds for blocking Tamimi's visa are, of course, entirely spurious. The simple fact of the matter is that while Israeli apartheid politicians and propagandists, from Netanyahu on down, come and go without let or hindrance, a bona fide victim of Israeli apartheid, with an urgent story to tell about the ongoing theft and occupation of his land, has the door slammed in his face.
The real reason Tamimi's visa was blocked has been spelt out by the ABC's Middle East correspondent, Sophie McNeill, in a tweet:
"I'm told Bassem Tamimi's visa to #Australia was revoked after lobbying by #AIJAC on Immigration Minister Dutton's office." (8/4/17)
No surprise there. Just another stark reminder of the power of Israel in Australia.
Allow me to recall here Kevin Rudd's inclusive description of Australia's Deep State:
"[Rudd] reflects on how few people run the country: the Murdoch media, the heads of Rio and BHP, probably the heads of the big banks, and 'that mob', by which he means the hard-line, Likud-aligned pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne." (Diary of a Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, 2014, p 449)
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Another USraeli Nail in the UN Coffin
The following piece, Text of resignation letter by ESCWA Executive Secretary Rima Khalaf (taken from jadaliyya.com, 18/3/17) bears eloquent testimony to the ongoing emasculation and marginalisation of the UN (and so of international law) by USraeli bullying and intimidation, a process which began with the underhanded tactics used by USrael to secure the passing of the Palestine partition resolution (181) of November 29, 1947 and has gone on ever since. Read, weep, and bear in mind that nothing whatever of this sorry tale has found its way into the Australian press:
"[The following text is the resignation letter submitted by Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) Executive Secretary Rima Khalaf in response to the formal request by UN Secretary-General [Antonio Guterres] that ESCWA withdraw the publication of a report that asserts Israel is committing Apartheid. Click here to access the full ESCWA report, which has since been removed from the UN website.]
"Dear Mr Secretary-General,
"I have carefully considered your message... and assure you that at no point have I questioned your right to order the withdrawal of the report from our website or the fact that all of us working in the Secretariat are subject to the authority of its Secretary-General. Nor do I have any doubts regarding your commitment to human rights in general, or your firm position regarding the rights of the Palestinian people. I also understand the concerns that you have, particularly in these difficult times, that leave you little choice.
"I am not oblivious to the vicious attacks and threats the UN and you personally were subjected to from powerful Member States as a result of the publication of the ESCWA report 'Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People & the Question of Apartheid'. I do not find it surprising that such Member States, who now have governments with little regard for international norms and values of human rights, will resort to intimidation when they find it hard to defend their unlawful policies and practices. It is only normal for criminals to pressure and attack those who advocate the cause of their victims. I cannot submit to such pressure.
"Not by virtue of my being an international official, but simply by virtue of being a decent human being, I believe, like you, in the universal values and principles that have always been the driving force for good in human history, and on which this organization of ours, the United Nations, is founded. Like you, I believe that discrimination against anyone due to their religion, skin color, sex, or ethnic origin is unacceptable, and that such discrimination cannot be rendered acceptable by the calculations of political expediency or power politics. I also believe people should not only have the freedom to speak truth to power, but they have the duty to do so.
"In the space of two months you have instructed me to withdraw two reports produced by ESCWA, not due to any fault found in the reports and probably not because you disagreed with their content, but due to the political pressure by member states who gravely violate the rights of the people of the region.
"You have seen first hand that the people of this region are going through a period of suffering unparalleled in their modern history; and that the overwhelming flood of catastrophes today is the result of a stream of injustices that were either ignored, plastered over, or openly endorsed by powerful governments inside and outside the region. Those same governments are the ones pressuring you to silence the voice of truth and the call for justice represented in these reports.
"Given the above, I cannot but stand by the findings of ESCWA's report that Israel has established an apartheid regime that seeks the domination of one racial group over another. The evidence provided by this report drafted by renowned experts is overwhelming. Suffice it to say that none of those who attacked the report had a word to say about its content. I feel it my duty to shed light on the legally inadmissible and morally indefensible fact that an apartheid regime still exists in the 21st century rather than suppressing the evidence. In saying this I claim no moral superiority nor ownership of a more prescient vision. My position might be informed by a lifetime of experiencing the dire consequences of blocking peaceful channels to addressing people's grievances in our region.
"After giving the matter due consideration, I realized that I too have little choice. I cannot withdraw another well-researched, well-documented UN work on grave violations of human rights, yet I know that clear instructions by the Secretary-General will have to be implemented promptly. A dilemma that can only be resolved by my stepping down to allow someone else to deliver what I am unable to deliver in good conscience. I know that I have only two more weeks to serve; my resignation is therefore not intended for political pressure. It is simply because I feel it my duty towards the people we serve, towards the UN and towards myself, not to withdraw an honest testimony about an ongoing crime that is at the root of so much human suffering. Therefore, I hereby submit to you my resignation from the United Nations."
A salute to Rima Khalaf, one who would not sell her soul.
"[The following text is the resignation letter submitted by Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) Executive Secretary Rima Khalaf in response to the formal request by UN Secretary-General [Antonio Guterres] that ESCWA withdraw the publication of a report that asserts Israel is committing Apartheid. Click here to access the full ESCWA report, which has since been removed from the UN website.]
"Dear Mr Secretary-General,
"I have carefully considered your message... and assure you that at no point have I questioned your right to order the withdrawal of the report from our website or the fact that all of us working in the Secretariat are subject to the authority of its Secretary-General. Nor do I have any doubts regarding your commitment to human rights in general, or your firm position regarding the rights of the Palestinian people. I also understand the concerns that you have, particularly in these difficult times, that leave you little choice.
"I am not oblivious to the vicious attacks and threats the UN and you personally were subjected to from powerful Member States as a result of the publication of the ESCWA report 'Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People & the Question of Apartheid'. I do not find it surprising that such Member States, who now have governments with little regard for international norms and values of human rights, will resort to intimidation when they find it hard to defend their unlawful policies and practices. It is only normal for criminals to pressure and attack those who advocate the cause of their victims. I cannot submit to such pressure.
"Not by virtue of my being an international official, but simply by virtue of being a decent human being, I believe, like you, in the universal values and principles that have always been the driving force for good in human history, and on which this organization of ours, the United Nations, is founded. Like you, I believe that discrimination against anyone due to their religion, skin color, sex, or ethnic origin is unacceptable, and that such discrimination cannot be rendered acceptable by the calculations of political expediency or power politics. I also believe people should not only have the freedom to speak truth to power, but they have the duty to do so.
"In the space of two months you have instructed me to withdraw two reports produced by ESCWA, not due to any fault found in the reports and probably not because you disagreed with their content, but due to the political pressure by member states who gravely violate the rights of the people of the region.
"You have seen first hand that the people of this region are going through a period of suffering unparalleled in their modern history; and that the overwhelming flood of catastrophes today is the result of a stream of injustices that were either ignored, plastered over, or openly endorsed by powerful governments inside and outside the region. Those same governments are the ones pressuring you to silence the voice of truth and the call for justice represented in these reports.
"Given the above, I cannot but stand by the findings of ESCWA's report that Israel has established an apartheid regime that seeks the domination of one racial group over another. The evidence provided by this report drafted by renowned experts is overwhelming. Suffice it to say that none of those who attacked the report had a word to say about its content. I feel it my duty to shed light on the legally inadmissible and morally indefensible fact that an apartheid regime still exists in the 21st century rather than suppressing the evidence. In saying this I claim no moral superiority nor ownership of a more prescient vision. My position might be informed by a lifetime of experiencing the dire consequences of blocking peaceful channels to addressing people's grievances in our region.
"After giving the matter due consideration, I realized that I too have little choice. I cannot withdraw another well-researched, well-documented UN work on grave violations of human rights, yet I know that clear instructions by the Secretary-General will have to be implemented promptly. A dilemma that can only be resolved by my stepping down to allow someone else to deliver what I am unable to deliver in good conscience. I know that I have only two more weeks to serve; my resignation is therefore not intended for political pressure. It is simply because I feel it my duty towards the people we serve, towards the UN and towards myself, not to withdraw an honest testimony about an ongoing crime that is at the root of so much human suffering. Therefore, I hereby submit to you my resignation from the United Nations."
A salute to Rima Khalaf, one who would not sell her soul.
Monday, October 24, 2016
Scared S***less
"American musicians who support boycotting Israel over the issue of Palestinian rights are terrified to speak out for fear their careers will be destroyed, according to Roger Waters. The Pink Floyd star - a prominent supporter of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel since its inception 10 years ago - said the experience of seeing himself constantly labelled a Nazi and anti-Semite had scared people into silence... 'My industry has been particularly recalcitrant in even raising a voice [against Israel]. There's me and Elvis Costello, Brian Eno, Manic Street Preachers, one or two others, but there's nobody in the United States where I live. I've talked to a lot of them, and they are scared s***less." (Roger Waters: Pink Floyd star on why his fellow musicians are terrified to speak out against Israel, Paul Gallagher, independent.co.uk, 20/2/16)
I don't think the Zionist mafia in the US could bear a repeat of one of this century's finest and most moving protest songs, Michael Heart's 2009 We Will Not Go Down (Song for Gaza).
I don't think the Zionist mafia in the US could bear a repeat of one of this century's finest and most moving protest songs, Michael Heart's 2009 We Will Not Go Down (Song for Gaza).
Friday, June 3, 2016
Speak & Be Heard, Just Not on Palestine, OK? 3
So far, so good:
"Speakers Trust have reinstated the video of Leanne Mohamad's speech and given MPACUK [Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK] a statement about the actual events that have taken place. This follows a campaign by MPACUK and other activists who demanded answers about what has happened and why Ms Mohamad had been treated in such a disrespectful manner. It seems that the Jewish Chronicle has misrepresented the whole saga..." (mpacuk.org, 1/6/16)
What a surprise!
"Speakers Trust CEO, Julie Holness, sent the following statement to MPACUK:
"All concerns communicated to us are taken very seriously but the private [email] message sent by the CEO [to Edgar Davidson], and made public without her consent..."
As indicated in my initial post in this series, Holness' email to Davidson couldn't have been more accommodating. 'Chummy', to use a very English word, comes to mind. Which raises the question whether a person who is seemingly unaware of Zionism's near 100-year war on free speech, or at least its current manifestations in the UK, is heading an organisation, the raison d'etre of which is to promote freedom of speech.
"... was inaccurately represented. Edgar Davidson wrote under a different identity as an accomplished 'Professor...."
This suggests that not only is Holness in undue awe of titles - bet she gets off on CEO!- but that she couldn't be bothered to check Davidson out before responding to him. Such laziness is inexcusable.
"... and the intentions in writing back were twofold: to defend the accusation that the... Jack Petchey Foundation promotes propaganda... and to let [Davidson] know that Leanne had not been selected for the Grand Final so that any comments to her would immediately stop... The comment of propaganda was not directed at Leanne's speech or at the topic..."
Let's take a look at that part of Holness' email to Davidson:
"There are... two fundamental rules that are made explicit during the - the speech must have a positive and uplifting message... - a speaker should never inflame or offend the audience... and this, by definition, means propaganda is ruled out... It is, however, the school that votes through its most talented speaker.... Unfortunately... a speech that does not observe these ground rules may very rarely get through on passion and delivery."
The clear implication here is that Leanne's speech was one of these. If this is not the case, then Holness' ability to communicate effectively is called into question, which, in turn, calls into question her competence as CEO of Speakers Trust.
"Speakers Trust have reinstated the video of Leanne Mohamad's speech and given MPACUK [Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK] a statement about the actual events that have taken place. This follows a campaign by MPACUK and other activists who demanded answers about what has happened and why Ms Mohamad had been treated in such a disrespectful manner. It seems that the Jewish Chronicle has misrepresented the whole saga..." (mpacuk.org, 1/6/16)
What a surprise!
"Speakers Trust CEO, Julie Holness, sent the following statement to MPACUK:
"All concerns communicated to us are taken very seriously but the private [email] message sent by the CEO [to Edgar Davidson], and made public without her consent..."
As indicated in my initial post in this series, Holness' email to Davidson couldn't have been more accommodating. 'Chummy', to use a very English word, comes to mind. Which raises the question whether a person who is seemingly unaware of Zionism's near 100-year war on free speech, or at least its current manifestations in the UK, is heading an organisation, the raison d'etre of which is to promote freedom of speech.
"... was inaccurately represented. Edgar Davidson wrote under a different identity as an accomplished 'Professor...."
This suggests that not only is Holness in undue awe of titles - bet she gets off on CEO!- but that she couldn't be bothered to check Davidson out before responding to him. Such laziness is inexcusable.
"... and the intentions in writing back were twofold: to defend the accusation that the... Jack Petchey Foundation promotes propaganda... and to let [Davidson] know that Leanne had not been selected for the Grand Final so that any comments to her would immediately stop... The comment of propaganda was not directed at Leanne's speech or at the topic..."
Let's take a look at that part of Holness' email to Davidson:
"There are... two fundamental rules that are made explicit during the - the speech must have a positive and uplifting message... - a speaker should never inflame or offend the audience... and this, by definition, means propaganda is ruled out... It is, however, the school that votes through its most talented speaker.... Unfortunately... a speech that does not observe these ground rules may very rarely get through on passion and delivery."
The clear implication here is that Leanne's speech was one of these. If this is not the case, then Holness' ability to communicate effectively is called into question, which, in turn, calls into question her competence as CEO of Speakers Trust.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Speak & Be Heard, Just Not on Palestine, OK? 2
Further to yesterday's post:
"On 19th May Leanne Mohamad... was chosen from among 19 finalists as the 2015/6 Redbridge Regional Final winner. She was chosen by an independent panel of judges. As a Regional Final winner the speech was posted online. Following vile and hateful comments posted online during this Bank Holiday weekend Speakers Trust removed the video of Leanne's speech. We will not tolerate trolling of young people. As a small charity without the capacity to moderate comments 24 hours a day it was considered essential to protect Leanne by temporarily suspending the regional video until we were able to consult fully with her school and family." (Joint statement from Speakers Trust & the Jack Petchey Foundation, On Leanne Mohamad & Speak Out competition, 31/5/16)
Let me get this straight - Leanne was "protected" from online abusive comments, not by moderating (or simply disallowing) comments, but by removing the video of Leanne's speech...
So it's now Leanne 0, Bullies 1.
Keep on digging, Speakers Trust.
NB: A change.org petition calling for the Jack Petchey Foundation to uncensor Leanne is currently in circulation. Please sign!
"On 19th May Leanne Mohamad... was chosen from among 19 finalists as the 2015/6 Redbridge Regional Final winner. She was chosen by an independent panel of judges. As a Regional Final winner the speech was posted online. Following vile and hateful comments posted online during this Bank Holiday weekend Speakers Trust removed the video of Leanne's speech. We will not tolerate trolling of young people. As a small charity without the capacity to moderate comments 24 hours a day it was considered essential to protect Leanne by temporarily suspending the regional video until we were able to consult fully with her school and family." (Joint statement from Speakers Trust & the Jack Petchey Foundation, On Leanne Mohamad & Speak Out competition, 31/5/16)
Let me get this straight - Leanne was "protected" from online abusive comments, not by moderating (or simply disallowing) comments, but by removing the video of Leanne's speech...
So it's now Leanne 0, Bullies 1.
Keep on digging, Speakers Trust.
NB: A change.org petition calling for the Jack Petchey Foundation to uncensor Leanne is currently in circulation. Please sign!
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Speak & Be Heard, Just Not on Palestine, OK?
The current round of Zionist bullying in the UK has hit a new low:
"A British Palestinian school girl, Leanne Mohamad of Wanstead High School, won the 'Speak Out Challenge' after giving this impressive performance to enthusiastic applause. But a day later, following complaints from extremist anti-Palestinian blogger Edgar Davidson, Leanne will no longer be sent through to the grand final of the public speaking competition. It seems that giving a personal account of the Nakba and a plea for an end to discrimination against Palestinians is not acceptable in the UK.
"Competition organisers Speakers Trust have removed the video from their website, Speak Out Challenge, and their YouTube channel.. The Speak Out Challenge is described thus: 'In each one-day workshop, students take part in games and exercises to encourage them to think on their feet in a fun, interactive and safe environment. The day culminates in a 'Speak Out' speech contest where students can speak on any topic they feel strongly about - using only their voices, their words and their passion. Notes are not allowed; they must use the techniques from the training.'
"The Free Speech on Israel network object to the undue influence that was imposed on Speakers Trust; 15 year old Leanne Mohamad should have been allowed to go through to the final..." (Speak Out or Shut Up? Schoolgirl's Nakba speech censored, freespeechonisrael.org.uk, 29/5/16)
As usual, however, in cases like this, it is not so much the bully that concerns me, but the sheer cluelessness and cowardice of those who facilitate them. Without their help, Zionist witch-finders would simply be left to stew, without the oxygen of publicity, in their own bile.
But first the bully, blogger Edgar Davidson. A simple glance at his scribblings by any informed individual would reveal that we are dealing here with nothing less than a hard-wired Zionist fanatic.
Davidson, for example, defines his blog as "Confronting anti-Semitism & Israel hatred." IOW, he conflates anti-Semitism with opposition to Israeli apartheid. A dead giveaway. Leanne's brave and heartfelt speech is thus written off as "full of ignorant lies and blood libels."
Then there's his linking to like-minded fanatics for whom the very existence of the Palestinians is anathema:
"Where ARE all those Palestinians, the proclaimed one million of them who lived in Israel before they were 'displaced'? Nowhere. Nowhere, because they never existed." (9,000 photos from 1800's [?] British Mandate of Palestine - with no trace of 'Palestinians', palestineisisrael.wordpress.com)
In fact, such is the madness on display in his post on Leanne Mohamad that a 15-year-old schoolgirl speaking candidly and movingly about Israel's relentless persecution of her people over more than six decades can lead him to conclude that "there is no long-term future for British Jewry."
Enough said about Davidson.
It's Julie Holness, the CEO of Speakers Trust (slogan: 'Speak & Be Heard'), however, that really has me riled.
Davidson published an emailed response he'd received from her in reply to his initial post on Leanne Mohamad's speech. And what an extraordinary document it is. Not only does Holness shows no sign whatever that she's dealing with a fanatic and a bully but bends over backwards to accommodate him:
"Thank you very much for your email... We take your concerns very seriously," she begins.
Neither a defence of the content of Leanne's speech, or of free speech in general, follows. Instead, she merely asserts that "There are... two fundamental rules that are made explicit during the training: - the speech must have a positive and uplifting message... - a speaker should never inflame or offend the audience or insult others and this... means that propaganda is ruled out absolutely from the outside," and assumes that Leanne's speech is guilty on both counts.
She then goes on to, in effect, blame the school for voting Leanne as "its most talented speaker," and "an independent panel of judges from the local community" for selecting her as "their regional winner."
This is followed by a reassurance that a Speakers Trust panel has met and decided "unanimously against sending Leanne Mohamad through to the next stage and she will not be speaking at the Grand Final."
Finally, Holness asks Davidson if he wishes her to forward his email to her school.
Pandering to Zionist trolls, of course, merely encourages them to engage in further excesses. Davidson is no exception, replying that "The lies and blood libels in Leanne's speech actually go far beyond what even the terrorist organisation Hamas claims."
He will, moreover, have his pound of flesh:
"I see that the video is STILL on your website... if it is left there, there must be a clear statement about how it has breached the rules, why it is so offensive and why nothing like that can ever be accepted in the future. There must also be a proper video response."
Davidson, hard-wired as I've explained, simply cannot help himself.
As for Holness, however, what an appalling indictment of the UK education system it is that the nation which single-handedly created the Palestine problem almost 100 years ago can produce individuals such as Holness who are, seemingly, blissfully unaware of both the fact and its ramifications.
"A British Palestinian school girl, Leanne Mohamad of Wanstead High School, won the 'Speak Out Challenge' after giving this impressive performance to enthusiastic applause. But a day later, following complaints from extremist anti-Palestinian blogger Edgar Davidson, Leanne will no longer be sent through to the grand final of the public speaking competition. It seems that giving a personal account of the Nakba and a plea for an end to discrimination against Palestinians is not acceptable in the UK.
"Competition organisers Speakers Trust have removed the video from their website, Speak Out Challenge, and their YouTube channel.. The Speak Out Challenge is described thus: 'In each one-day workshop, students take part in games and exercises to encourage them to think on their feet in a fun, interactive and safe environment. The day culminates in a 'Speak Out' speech contest where students can speak on any topic they feel strongly about - using only their voices, their words and their passion. Notes are not allowed; they must use the techniques from the training.'
"The Free Speech on Israel network object to the undue influence that was imposed on Speakers Trust; 15 year old Leanne Mohamad should have been allowed to go through to the final..." (Speak Out or Shut Up? Schoolgirl's Nakba speech censored, freespeechonisrael.org.uk, 29/5/16)
As usual, however, in cases like this, it is not so much the bully that concerns me, but the sheer cluelessness and cowardice of those who facilitate them. Without their help, Zionist witch-finders would simply be left to stew, without the oxygen of publicity, in their own bile.
But first the bully, blogger Edgar Davidson. A simple glance at his scribblings by any informed individual would reveal that we are dealing here with nothing less than a hard-wired Zionist fanatic.
Davidson, for example, defines his blog as "Confronting anti-Semitism & Israel hatred." IOW, he conflates anti-Semitism with opposition to Israeli apartheid. A dead giveaway. Leanne's brave and heartfelt speech is thus written off as "full of ignorant lies and blood libels."
Then there's his linking to like-minded fanatics for whom the very existence of the Palestinians is anathema:
"Where ARE all those Palestinians, the proclaimed one million of them who lived in Israel before they were 'displaced'? Nowhere. Nowhere, because they never existed." (9,000 photos from 1800's [?] British Mandate of Palestine - with no trace of 'Palestinians', palestineisisrael.wordpress.com)
In fact, such is the madness on display in his post on Leanne Mohamad that a 15-year-old schoolgirl speaking candidly and movingly about Israel's relentless persecution of her people over more than six decades can lead him to conclude that "there is no long-term future for British Jewry."
Enough said about Davidson.
It's Julie Holness, the CEO of Speakers Trust (slogan: 'Speak & Be Heard'), however, that really has me riled.
Davidson published an emailed response he'd received from her in reply to his initial post on Leanne Mohamad's speech. And what an extraordinary document it is. Not only does Holness shows no sign whatever that she's dealing with a fanatic and a bully but bends over backwards to accommodate him:
"Thank you very much for your email... We take your concerns very seriously," she begins.
Neither a defence of the content of Leanne's speech, or of free speech in general, follows. Instead, she merely asserts that "There are... two fundamental rules that are made explicit during the training: - the speech must have a positive and uplifting message... - a speaker should never inflame or offend the audience or insult others and this... means that propaganda is ruled out absolutely from the outside," and assumes that Leanne's speech is guilty on both counts.
She then goes on to, in effect, blame the school for voting Leanne as "its most talented speaker," and "an independent panel of judges from the local community" for selecting her as "their regional winner."
This is followed by a reassurance that a Speakers Trust panel has met and decided "unanimously against sending Leanne Mohamad through to the next stage and she will not be speaking at the Grand Final."
Finally, Holness asks Davidson if he wishes her to forward his email to her school.
Pandering to Zionist trolls, of course, merely encourages them to engage in further excesses. Davidson is no exception, replying that "The lies and blood libels in Leanne's speech actually go far beyond what even the terrorist organisation Hamas claims."
He will, moreover, have his pound of flesh:
"I see that the video is STILL on your website... if it is left there, there must be a clear statement about how it has breached the rules, why it is so offensive and why nothing like that can ever be accepted in the future. There must also be a proper video response."
Davidson, hard-wired as I've explained, simply cannot help himself.
As for Holness, however, what an appalling indictment of the UK education system it is that the nation which single-handedly created the Palestine problem almost 100 years ago can produce individuals such as Holness who are, seemingly, blissfully unaware of both the fact and its ramifications.
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Choosing Targets
"A Melbourne playwright has defended herself against claims a play set in Gaza and studied by Victorian high school students is anti-Israel. Tales of a City by the Sea, a love story set during the Gaza conflict in 2008 and 2009 is by poet and author Samah Sabawi... But Jewish lobby group B'nai B'rith has attacked the play as 'anti-Israel propaganda' [portraying] Israel as a 'bloodthirsty, evil war machine'." (School drama a love story, not anti-Israel propaganda, says playwright, Jennine Khalik, The Australian, 10/5/16)
Hm... B'nai B'rith. Why B'nai B'rith?
Why not the Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC)? The Jewish Community Council of Victoria? Zionism Victoria?
Why not the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ)? The NSW Jewish Board of Deputies? The Zionist Council of NSW?
I'm wondering: how do these outfits decide which of them goes after which target?
Do they have regular confabs where they parcel out targets cooperatively? Or is it first in, first served? Do they compete with each other for scalps? Was the Jewish Community Council of Victoria, for example, miffed because, in this case, the B'nai B'rith beat them to it?
More to the point, don't they have anything better to do?*
[See my 20/5/13 post Join the Dots.]
Hm... B'nai B'rith. Why B'nai B'rith?
Why not the Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC)? The Jewish Community Council of Victoria? Zionism Victoria?
Why not the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ)? The NSW Jewish Board of Deputies? The Zionist Council of NSW?
I'm wondering: how do these outfits decide which of them goes after which target?
Do they have regular confabs where they parcel out targets cooperatively? Or is it first in, first served? Do they compete with each other for scalps? Was the Jewish Community Council of Victoria, for example, miffed because, in this case, the B'nai B'rith beat them to it?
More to the point, don't they have anything better to do?*
[See my 20/5/13 post Join the Dots.]
Friday, April 15, 2016
Who is the 'Guardian' Guarding? 2
Two snippets from The dark side of Guardian comments, The Guardian, 12/4/16.
1) "We also found that some subjects attracted more abusive or disruptive comments than others. Conversations about crosswords, cricket, horse racing and jazz were respectful; discussions about the Israel/Palestine conflict were not..."
Well, well, well, what a surprise!
Hey, Guardian, maybe, just maybe, Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is just not cricket. Think about it...
2) "The Guardian has already taken the decision to cut down the number of places where comments are open on stories relating to a few particularly contentious subjects, such as migration and race."
We know, we know. But you left out Israel. Why?
1) "We also found that some subjects attracted more abusive or disruptive comments than others. Conversations about crosswords, cricket, horse racing and jazz were respectful; discussions about the Israel/Palestine conflict were not..."
Well, well, well, what a surprise!
Hey, Guardian, maybe, just maybe, Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is just not cricket. Think about it...
2) "The Guardian has already taken the decision to cut down the number of places where comments are open on stories relating to a few particularly contentious subjects, such as migration and race."
We know, we know. But you left out Israel. Why?
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Who is the 'Guardian' Guarding? 1
Spot the odd one out:
"Writers who touch on tricky subjects - race, gender, Israel, migration... can often find themselves on the receiving end of abuse and agenda trolling as well as reasoned debate and criticism."
That's the Guardian's 'executive editor for audience,' Mary Hamilton, writing in a February 1 opinion piece, Online comments: we want to be responsible hosts. The fact that Israel is included in Hamilton's list is highly revealing of the Guardian mindset. While one can fully understand her concern about racist (including anti-Semitic) and sexist comments, and the need to give these the flick, the inclusion of Israel in the list suggests that, for the Guardian, anti-Zionism is as unacceptable as racism and sexism, a clearly absurd proposition.
So when the notice This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards appears (as it too often does) in comment threads involving Israel, you can be sure that the Guardian is trying to shield Israel from trenchant criticism.
I cannot, of course, prove it but I imagine that most of the censored comments on these threads either contain words such as 'apartheid,' 'ethnic cleansing,' or 'supremacist,' question the legitimacy of Israel as an ethno-religious 'Jewish' state, or reject that quintessential Zionist construct, 'the Jewish people' (as opposed to Jews, believers or lapsed).
This is why I simply do not believe the Guardian when it claims, at least with reference to Israel, that "[w]e recognise the difference between criticising a particular government, organisation or belief and attacking people on the based on their race [and] religion..."
Just who are the Guardian's faceless moderators? What are their qualifications and biases? It is entirely conceivable that, at best, they simply do not have the knowledge base to rule comments on Israel in or out, while at worst, they may harbor, to one degree or another, a host of Zionist prejudices and misconceptions.
No wonder then that the Guardian's readers are unhappy. Here, for example, is JohnnyCK's response to another piece by Mary Hamilton, The Guardian wants to engage with readers, but how we do it needs to evolve (9/4/16):
"So, ah, I just got moderated on the Guardian for the first time. I'm a bit shocked. It wasn't because I insulted someone or attacked a journalist or flame baited or trolled. I attempted to explain my position on Israel and I must have said something the moderators didn't like. I didn't say anything antisemitic or inflammatory... I tried to be very even-handed in what I said. I wasn't totally pro-Israel though, which I guess is the problem. I'm not thin-skinned online., but I'm very taken aback by how my statement was moderated in this instance. It's given me real pause over whether I want to keep using this newspaper."
That highlighted sentence says it all.
"Writers who touch on tricky subjects - race, gender, Israel, migration... can often find themselves on the receiving end of abuse and agenda trolling as well as reasoned debate and criticism."
That's the Guardian's 'executive editor for audience,' Mary Hamilton, writing in a February 1 opinion piece, Online comments: we want to be responsible hosts. The fact that Israel is included in Hamilton's list is highly revealing of the Guardian mindset. While one can fully understand her concern about racist (including anti-Semitic) and sexist comments, and the need to give these the flick, the inclusion of Israel in the list suggests that, for the Guardian, anti-Zionism is as unacceptable as racism and sexism, a clearly absurd proposition.
So when the notice This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards appears (as it too often does) in comment threads involving Israel, you can be sure that the Guardian is trying to shield Israel from trenchant criticism.
I cannot, of course, prove it but I imagine that most of the censored comments on these threads either contain words such as 'apartheid,' 'ethnic cleansing,' or 'supremacist,' question the legitimacy of Israel as an ethno-religious 'Jewish' state, or reject that quintessential Zionist construct, 'the Jewish people' (as opposed to Jews, believers or lapsed).
This is why I simply do not believe the Guardian when it claims, at least with reference to Israel, that "[w]e recognise the difference between criticising a particular government, organisation or belief and attacking people on the based on their race [and] religion..."
Just who are the Guardian's faceless moderators? What are their qualifications and biases? It is entirely conceivable that, at best, they simply do not have the knowledge base to rule comments on Israel in or out, while at worst, they may harbor, to one degree or another, a host of Zionist prejudices and misconceptions.
No wonder then that the Guardian's readers are unhappy. Here, for example, is JohnnyCK's response to another piece by Mary Hamilton, The Guardian wants to engage with readers, but how we do it needs to evolve (9/4/16):
"So, ah, I just got moderated on the Guardian for the first time. I'm a bit shocked. It wasn't because I insulted someone or attacked a journalist or flame baited or trolled. I attempted to explain my position on Israel and I must have said something the moderators didn't like. I didn't say anything antisemitic or inflammatory... I tried to be very even-handed in what I said. I wasn't totally pro-Israel though, which I guess is the problem. I'm not thin-skinned online., but I'm very taken aback by how my statement was moderated in this instance. It's given me real pause over whether I want to keep using this newspaper."
That highlighted sentence says it all.
Monday, March 14, 2016
When Reality is Anti-Israel
Here we go again:
"McGraw-Hill Education has taken the unusual step of withdrawing a textbook and planning to destroy all copies of it - following criticism that four maps in the book are inaccurate and anti-Israel. The book is a political science textbook, Global Politics: Engaging a Complex World. The McGraw-Hill Education website no longer features the book. But a page on Amazon describes the book this way: 'This contemporary presentation stresses the importance of global events and offers students a number of lenses through which to view the world around them'." (McGraw-Hill Education withdraws textbook with maps viewed as anti-Israel, Scott Jaschik, insidehighered.com, 8/3/16)
OK, let's just pause there.
"Inaccurate"? What, Jerusalem's Haifa and vice versa?
No, if that were the problem, you wouldn't be reading about this matter. The problem clearly has to do with the maps being "anti-Israel." And for our mysterious, faceless critics, anything anti-Israel is ipso facto inaccurate or... worse! And to hell with this namby pamby multi-lens approach to the world. There is only one lens for these guyz. But I digress...
"The book features 4 maps of what is now Israel, Gaza and the West Bank and say that it shows 'Palestinian loss of land' from 1946 to 2000."
Now we're getting close. There's a word there that is to these mysterious critics as garlic is to vampires.
Can you see it? Suffice it to say that it begins with the letter 'P'.
"Many Palestinian advocates agree with the maps, but many historians and supporters of Israel strongly disagree...."
Oh, I see, Scottie...
Advocates agree with the maps, but HISTORIANS (& supporters of Israel) disagree.
End of matter. After all, HISTORIANS (& supporters of Israel), have HISTORY on their side, and must be right, right?
And just so you get it, Scottie adds: "Supporters of Israel have fought the use of these maps elsewhere and quicklydemanded urged McGraw-Hill to change or withdraw the textbook. Here is one such blog post which outlines objections to the maps and includes alternative ways to think about land in the region."
Thanks for putting us all on the ztraight and narrow, Zcottie.
And thanks, McGraw Hill for protecting our students from that awful creature, reality. Can't have that ugly bastard messing with their impressionable young minds, now can we?
"McGraw-Hill Education has taken the unusual step of withdrawing a textbook and planning to destroy all copies of it - following criticism that four maps in the book are inaccurate and anti-Israel. The book is a political science textbook, Global Politics: Engaging a Complex World. The McGraw-Hill Education website no longer features the book. But a page on Amazon describes the book this way: 'This contemporary presentation stresses the importance of global events and offers students a number of lenses through which to view the world around them'." (McGraw-Hill Education withdraws textbook with maps viewed as anti-Israel, Scott Jaschik, insidehighered.com, 8/3/16)
OK, let's just pause there.
"Inaccurate"? What, Jerusalem's Haifa and vice versa?
No, if that were the problem, you wouldn't be reading about this matter. The problem clearly has to do with the maps being "anti-Israel." And for our mysterious, faceless critics, anything anti-Israel is ipso facto inaccurate or... worse! And to hell with this namby pamby multi-lens approach to the world. There is only one lens for these guyz. But I digress...
"The book features 4 maps of what is now Israel, Gaza and the West Bank and say that it shows 'Palestinian loss of land' from 1946 to 2000."
Now we're getting close. There's a word there that is to these mysterious critics as garlic is to vampires.
Can you see it? Suffice it to say that it begins with the letter 'P'.
"Many Palestinian advocates agree with the maps, but many historians and supporters of Israel strongly disagree...."
Oh, I see, Scottie...
Advocates agree with the maps, but HISTORIANS (& supporters of Israel) disagree.
End of matter. After all, HISTORIANS (& supporters of Israel), have HISTORY on their side, and must be right, right?
And just so you get it, Scottie adds: "Supporters of Israel have fought the use of these maps elsewhere and quickly
Thanks for putting us all on the ztraight and narrow, Zcottie.
And thanks, McGraw Hill for protecting our students from that awful creature, reality. Can't have that ugly bastard messing with their impressionable young minds, now can we?
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Land of the Not Free & Home of the Not Brave
Michael Singh's Valentino's Ghost: Why We Hate Arabs (2015) "is an epic documentary that resituates the whole question of anti-Arab/-Muslim stereotyping as a matter of the 'special relationship' between the US and Israel... " (Valentino's ghost makes comeback after 4 years of suppression, Terri Ginsberg, mondoweiss.net, 27/12/15 )
Which explains why it's encountering censorship in USrael, land of the not free and home of the not brave:
"... perhaps the most troubling instance of the film's censorship was evidenced by Singh's encounter with PBS's [Public Broadcasting Service] David Fanning... Singh simultaneously transcribed one of his revealing telephone conversations with Fanning...
FANNING: I agree with your premise and your arguments, but I will do everything I can to block the broadcast of your film on WGBH or in fact any other PBS affiliate in the country.
SINGH: Why is that?
FANNING: Because it'll piss off my rich Jewish friends.
SINGH: So this huge subject will remain under the rug?
FANNING: It's not a huge subject. You can cover your premise in about 4 minutes. What will you do for the next 50 minutes?
SINGH: I actually have enough material for a 3-hour miniseries.
FANNING: How are you going to fund that?
SINGH: I don't know. Get grants.
FANNING: And if you get Arab money, I'm going to find you out.
SINGH: What about Holocaust films made with Israeli money?
FANNING: That's OK. Not a problem.
SINGH: That's a double-standard.
FANNING: Yup. It's a double standard, and you're going to have to get used to it.
SINGH: That's hypocritical
FANNING: Well, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
SINGH: That's the opposite of PBS's mission. In fact, it is a violation of their charter for the money people to influence filmmakers editorially.
FANNING: That's the way it is, and if you quote me, I'll deny it.
Which explains why it's encountering censorship in USrael, land of the not free and home of the not brave:
"... perhaps the most troubling instance of the film's censorship was evidenced by Singh's encounter with PBS's [Public Broadcasting Service] David Fanning... Singh simultaneously transcribed one of his revealing telephone conversations with Fanning...
FANNING: I agree with your premise and your arguments, but I will do everything I can to block the broadcast of your film on WGBH or in fact any other PBS affiliate in the country.
SINGH: Why is that?
FANNING: Because it'll piss off my rich Jewish friends.
SINGH: So this huge subject will remain under the rug?
FANNING: It's not a huge subject. You can cover your premise in about 4 minutes. What will you do for the next 50 minutes?
SINGH: I actually have enough material for a 3-hour miniseries.
FANNING: How are you going to fund that?
SINGH: I don't know. Get grants.
FANNING: And if you get Arab money, I'm going to find you out.
SINGH: What about Holocaust films made with Israeli money?
FANNING: That's OK. Not a problem.
SINGH: That's a double-standard.
FANNING: Yup. It's a double standard, and you're going to have to get used to it.
SINGH: That's hypocritical
FANNING: Well, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
SINGH: That's the opposite of PBS's mission. In fact, it is a violation of their charter for the money people to influence filmmakers editorially.
FANNING: That's the way it is, and if you quote me, I'll deny it.
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Beware the Zionist Thought Police
"A prominent Jewish academic banned from delivering an address at a major conference because he boycotts against Israel has warned of a growing trend of censorship within the Jewish community. Peter Slezak, a philosopher at the University of NSW, had promised not to raise the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign [BDS] at the Limmud-Oz Festival of Jewish Ideas to be held in Sydney in June... He offered the organisers the chance to vet his proposed talk, on the German-American Jewish political theorist Hannah Arendt... The Limmud organisers rejected the proposal, saying even though Professor Slezak might not mention BDS, the problem is he believes in it." (Jewish community 'censors' its own on BDS', Ean Higgins, The Australian, 5/5/15)
Peter Slezak is to be commended for speaking out against the activities of the Zionist thought police. Here's another recent example of their handiwork:
"Australia's B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission [ADC] has welcomed the decision by the UN to conduct a review of any anti-Semitic and anti-Israel books..."
Note the conflation here!
"... offered at its official store in Geneva. Some of the texts to be reviewed include How I Stopped Being a Jew, Israel's War Against the Palestinians, and The Punishment of Gaza." (UN takes stock of its books, jwire.com.au, 4/5/15)
How I Stopped Being a Jew is by Israeli historian Shlomo Sand. I assume that the second item on the list is Noam Chomsky & Ilan Pappe's Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel's War Against the Palestinians. The Punishment of Gaza is by Israel's top journalist, Gideon Levy.
Oh well, the Zionist thought police may be after him, but Peter Slezak can at least take comfort from the fact that he's in the very best of company.
Peter Slezak is to be commended for speaking out against the activities of the Zionist thought police. Here's another recent example of their handiwork:
"Australia's B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission [ADC] has welcomed the decision by the UN to conduct a review of any anti-Semitic and anti-Israel books..."
Note the conflation here!
"... offered at its official store in Geneva. Some of the texts to be reviewed include How I Stopped Being a Jew, Israel's War Against the Palestinians, and The Punishment of Gaza." (UN takes stock of its books, jwire.com.au, 4/5/15)
How I Stopped Being a Jew is by Israeli historian Shlomo Sand. I assume that the second item on the list is Noam Chomsky & Ilan Pappe's Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel's War Against the Palestinians. The Punishment of Gaza is by Israel's top journalist, Gideon Levy.
Oh well, the Zionist thought police may be after him, but Peter Slezak can at least take comfort from the fact that he's in the very best of company.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
The Glass Wall
Back in August last year, journalist and writer Tim Robertson couldn't help but notice something missing in Morry Schwartz's Saturday Paper:
"There's been high praise for the Saturday Paper... the paper's commentary is insightful and well-informed: it has a stable of some of Australia's best writers... and it's a welcome addition to the Fairfax/News Ltd duopoly that's been one of the great scourges of Australian democracy... Nonetheless, the Saturday Paper's coverage of Israel's assault on Gaza has been conspicuously, well, non-existent. As the death toll rises and more atrocities are committed, the Saturday Paper's pages remain, to date, devoid of any comment. One might consider this highly unusual. After all, it's long been left to independent Left-wing media to support the Palestinian cause in the face of the grossly more powerful Israeli state and its supporters here in Australia. But for long-time readers of The Monthly, which, like the Saturday Paper, is published by Morry Schwartz, the coverage might not come as such a shock. (Mr Schwartz also publishes Black Inc. and the Quarterly Essay.)" (Excerpt from Palestine & the Saturday Paper, overland.org.au, 1/8/14)
Robertson went on to quote John Van Tiggelen, former editor of the Saturday Paper and now staff writer at The Monthly, speaking at the June 2014 Wordstorm Festival in Darwin. (Since Robertson's original quote is highly edited, I've reproduced the Van Tiggelen quote below more fully):
"I have to be careful here because I still get most of my wage from The Monthly. But, um, it's very different from Fairfax. I have to be honest here and say that at Fairfax, at the Good Weekend writing the long features, I never experienced political interference... Whereas when you work at a small publication, and it doesn't matter whether it's Graeme Wood at The Global Mail or Morry Schwartz... at The Monthly, you work very closely with a publisher and things do get spiked and you have raving rows about what goes through and what doesn't. And there are certain glass walls set up by the publisher that you can't go outside of. And we were talking about it beforehand with Antony [Loewenstein] - one of those is Palestine. [The Monthly's] seen as a left-wing publication but the publisher is very right-wing on Israel. He's Jewish, um, and he's very much to the Benjamin Netanyahu end of politics. So you can't touch it. We just don't touch it. There's just a glass wall goes around it." (abc.net.au/tv/bigideas, 25/6/14)
Robertson concludes correctly that the editorial regime which prevails at the Saturday Paper (and by extension at Schwartz's other publications such as The Monthly and the Quarterly Essay) "is no different to the Murdoch press' universal support for the Iraq War (though the scale is smaller): top-down, institutionalised censorship based on the political beliefs of one individual," adding that "It's fundamentally undemocratic and undermines the whole notion of a free press."
But that's not all - apart from being destructive of journalism per se, the erection of glass walls (and the phenomenon of self-censorship that accompanies it) leaves the consumer of that journalism in something of a quandary.
Take, for example, the following passage from Van Tiggelen's admiring profile of Labor's Tanya Plibersek in The Monthly of November 2014:
"If deputy leaders didn't get to choose their portfolios, foreign affairs might have eluded Plibersek. Her reputation has been built on tackling social issues, such as homelessness, domestic violence and discrimination. More significantly, she is of the Left, a faction less inclined to bipartisanship (and, specifically, to pro-Israel views) than the portfolio generally demands. Back in 2002, in an otherwise sharply argued speech dismantling the case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Plibersek described Israel as a 'rogue state' for its flouting of UN resolutions. She also called its then prime minister, Ariel Sharon, a war criminal. Today, though, you'd be hard-pressed to find a crack between the Government and the Opposition on security or Middle East policy. Plibersek has long recanted her comments on Israel and appears to be in lock step with the foreign minister, Julie Bishop, on the matter of Australia's renewed military engagement in Iraq."
Take that highlighted bit. I may be wrong but Van Tiggelen seems to be suggesting that, but for the references in the speech to Israel, the speech was fine. And yet he makes no attempt to explain why those references are in any way problematic. More importantly, what about his failure to probe the issue and circumstances of Plibersek's recantation of those references, surely a matter that goes to the very heart of Plibersek's intellectual and moral courage? I mean, isn't that what any journalist worth his salt would do? Could Van Tiggelen be self-censoring or Schwartz red-penciling? Who is really speaking here, Van Tiggelen or Schwartz? See the problem?
"There's been high praise for the Saturday Paper... the paper's commentary is insightful and well-informed: it has a stable of some of Australia's best writers... and it's a welcome addition to the Fairfax/News Ltd duopoly that's been one of the great scourges of Australian democracy... Nonetheless, the Saturday Paper's coverage of Israel's assault on Gaza has been conspicuously, well, non-existent. As the death toll rises and more atrocities are committed, the Saturday Paper's pages remain, to date, devoid of any comment. One might consider this highly unusual. After all, it's long been left to independent Left-wing media to support the Palestinian cause in the face of the grossly more powerful Israeli state and its supporters here in Australia. But for long-time readers of The Monthly, which, like the Saturday Paper, is published by Morry Schwartz, the coverage might not come as such a shock. (Mr Schwartz also publishes Black Inc. and the Quarterly Essay.)" (Excerpt from Palestine & the Saturday Paper, overland.org.au, 1/8/14)
Robertson went on to quote John Van Tiggelen, former editor of the Saturday Paper and now staff writer at The Monthly, speaking at the June 2014 Wordstorm Festival in Darwin. (Since Robertson's original quote is highly edited, I've reproduced the Van Tiggelen quote below more fully):
"I have to be careful here because I still get most of my wage from The Monthly. But, um, it's very different from Fairfax. I have to be honest here and say that at Fairfax, at the Good Weekend writing the long features, I never experienced political interference... Whereas when you work at a small publication, and it doesn't matter whether it's Graeme Wood at The Global Mail or Morry Schwartz... at The Monthly, you work very closely with a publisher and things do get spiked and you have raving rows about what goes through and what doesn't. And there are certain glass walls set up by the publisher that you can't go outside of. And we were talking about it beforehand with Antony [Loewenstein] - one of those is Palestine. [The Monthly's] seen as a left-wing publication but the publisher is very right-wing on Israel. He's Jewish, um, and he's very much to the Benjamin Netanyahu end of politics. So you can't touch it. We just don't touch it. There's just a glass wall goes around it." (abc.net.au/tv/bigideas, 25/6/14)
Robertson concludes correctly that the editorial regime which prevails at the Saturday Paper (and by extension at Schwartz's other publications such as The Monthly and the Quarterly Essay) "is no different to the Murdoch press' universal support for the Iraq War (though the scale is smaller): top-down, institutionalised censorship based on the political beliefs of one individual," adding that "It's fundamentally undemocratic and undermines the whole notion of a free press."
But that's not all - apart from being destructive of journalism per se, the erection of glass walls (and the phenomenon of self-censorship that accompanies it) leaves the consumer of that journalism in something of a quandary.
Take, for example, the following passage from Van Tiggelen's admiring profile of Labor's Tanya Plibersek in The Monthly of November 2014:
"If deputy leaders didn't get to choose their portfolios, foreign affairs might have eluded Plibersek. Her reputation has been built on tackling social issues, such as homelessness, domestic violence and discrimination. More significantly, she is of the Left, a faction less inclined to bipartisanship (and, specifically, to pro-Israel views) than the portfolio generally demands. Back in 2002, in an otherwise sharply argued speech dismantling the case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Plibersek described Israel as a 'rogue state' for its flouting of UN resolutions. She also called its then prime minister, Ariel Sharon, a war criminal. Today, though, you'd be hard-pressed to find a crack between the Government and the Opposition on security or Middle East policy. Plibersek has long recanted her comments on Israel and appears to be in lock step with the foreign minister, Julie Bishop, on the matter of Australia's renewed military engagement in Iraq."
Take that highlighted bit. I may be wrong but Van Tiggelen seems to be suggesting that, but for the references in the speech to Israel, the speech was fine. And yet he makes no attempt to explain why those references are in any way problematic. More importantly, what about his failure to probe the issue and circumstances of Plibersek's recantation of those references, surely a matter that goes to the very heart of Plibersek's intellectual and moral courage? I mean, isn't that what any journalist worth his salt would do? Could Van Tiggelen be self-censoring or Schwartz red-penciling? Who is really speaking here, Van Tiggelen or Schwartz? See the problem?
Monday, March 17, 2014
March In March
Off topic, but hey, it is my blog.
Although yesterday's anti-Abbott March in March rallies/marches were the largest of their kind in this country since Australia marched against the US-led invasion of Iraq in February, 2003, there has been a virtual ms media ban on reporting them, at least here in Sydney.
In Sydney, for example, one could stand at the top of the long Broadway rise, near Victoria Park (next to Sydney University) and look back down the road in awe at the sight of marchers who had only just passed Central Station as the lead marchers were already fanning out over Victoria Park.
Despite a thunderstorm and rain affecting the Belmore Park rally site earlier in the day, Sydney's MIM fielded tens of thousands of angry protesters in an awesome display of people power. Yet the media was largely missing in action.
Here's my tally for the televisual and print media:
Last night's Sydney television:
Channel 7 News 6pm: 0
SBS News 6.30pm-7pm: 0
ABC News 7pm: Covered
Today's Sydney papers:
The Australian: 0
Daily Telegraph: 0
Sydney Morning Herald: 0
The two Murdoch dailies were as expected.
The Sydney Morning Herald came as a shock (but shouldn't have).
What it did cover, however, tells you all you need to know about this sad little rag, which is to the Murdoch papers what Lab is to Lib.
The Herald covered Sunday's St Patrick's Day march: Rain fails to dampen Irish spirit on parade.
It also featured - as front page news - a Fairfax Nielsen poll which purported to reveal that "[v]oters appear to have taken in their stride reports of changes to the pension age and to Medicare, including government speculation of a $6 co-payment for GP visits." (Voters open to tough action on healthcare, Mark Kenny, 17/3/14)
All of 977 voters were polled nationwide, and yet the views of those 977 people (mediated by a poll, with all of a poll's known unknowns - Fairfax's agenda/ how the questions were shaped/ to what degree were those polled aware of the issues, etc) were considered more worthy of reporting than the views of tens of thousands of people who were sufficiently informed to take to the streets of Sydney, let alone those in NSW regional centres and other state capitals and regional centres across the land.
PS (18/3/14): See John Birmingham's reflection - Will you miss us when we're gone? (18/3) - on the MSM's failure to report MIM rallies at brisbanetimes.com.au. Another nail in the coffin of the corporate press?
Although yesterday's anti-Abbott March in March rallies/marches were the largest of their kind in this country since Australia marched against the US-led invasion of Iraq in February, 2003, there has been a virtual ms media ban on reporting them, at least here in Sydney.
In Sydney, for example, one could stand at the top of the long Broadway rise, near Victoria Park (next to Sydney University) and look back down the road in awe at the sight of marchers who had only just passed Central Station as the lead marchers were already fanning out over Victoria Park.
Despite a thunderstorm and rain affecting the Belmore Park rally site earlier in the day, Sydney's MIM fielded tens of thousands of angry protesters in an awesome display of people power. Yet the media was largely missing in action.
Here's my tally for the televisual and print media:
Last night's Sydney television:
Channel 7 News 6pm: 0
SBS News 6.30pm-7pm: 0
ABC News 7pm: Covered
Today's Sydney papers:
The Australian: 0
Daily Telegraph: 0
Sydney Morning Herald: 0
The two Murdoch dailies were as expected.
The Sydney Morning Herald came as a shock (but shouldn't have).
What it did cover, however, tells you all you need to know about this sad little rag, which is to the Murdoch papers what Lab is to Lib.
The Herald covered Sunday's St Patrick's Day march: Rain fails to dampen Irish spirit on parade.
It also featured - as front page news - a Fairfax Nielsen poll which purported to reveal that "[v]oters appear to have taken in their stride reports of changes to the pension age and to Medicare, including government speculation of a $6 co-payment for GP visits." (Voters open to tough action on healthcare, Mark Kenny, 17/3/14)
All of 977 voters were polled nationwide, and yet the views of those 977 people (mediated by a poll, with all of a poll's known unknowns - Fairfax's agenda/ how the questions were shaped/ to what degree were those polled aware of the issues, etc) were considered more worthy of reporting than the views of tens of thousands of people who were sufficiently informed to take to the streets of Sydney, let alone those in NSW regional centres and other state capitals and regional centres across the land.
PS (18/3/14): See John Birmingham's reflection - Will you miss us when we're gone? (18/3) - on the MSM's failure to report MIM rallies at brisbanetimes.com.au. Another nail in the coffin of the corporate press?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)